Depending on switch vendor and quality, they can actually increase the voltage output - the spec iirc allows for up to 57V at PSE which an intelligent switch can modulate to overcome limited voltage drop - cheaper switches (desktop etc) just supply all ports 54V (or less, but it should be 54 at source) from the same rail without any modulation
Given Mozilla's continual frittering away of cash, would it not show some constraint to not pay for "cloud" hosted stuff for things that could easily be hosted by Mozilla and probably for less (with a less absurd choice of software) - it's already pretty much game over anyway, as a long time defender of Mozilla it is impossible these days to argue.
I actually gave Kagi a try the other day because Google has reached the point of total uselessness (a day I thought had come and gone, but I was wrong, it continued to decline) - but actually the search results for the same queries are worse, not that the content is worse, but that it returns the better/more appropriate content further down the page, the actual content is pretty much identical. Am I doing it wrong or does the tsunami of crap on the internet just mean search engines are fucked?
Also if you dare try to naturally scroll up after opening a container it's interpreted as a refresh as it redraws. Might be an awesome format but web design fail negates it entirely.
No, unlike G.711, G.722 is lossily compressed using psychoacoustic concepts, and modems wouldn’t know what to do with the extra acoustic frequencies anyway.
G.722 might sound better to humans, but G.711 is definitely better for modems since it’s effectively just uncompressed PCM (disregarding a bit of dynamic range compression which modems are generally fine with).
It is compressed, yes, but at higher bitrates it is actually usable for modems/faxes, you're limited to low baud rates anyway due to jitter and sample intervals. But really the benefit is 16k sampling rate instead of 8, I'm not saying it's great but it's the best we've got.
It would be possible to mask this with a relatively simple FXS device to hide all of this and pretend it's a modem while packetising the actual data, but I guess the demand is almost zero so why bother.
I've been looking for a solution for many years to retain dialin services without having racks full of modems and trunks that are rapidly going out of fashion and at some point will not be available except via IP (and now we have the same problem at both ends), but they just don't exist.
> really the benefit is 16k sampling rate instead of 8
Regular modems can't make use of that, since the actual phone lines they were designed for (whether analog or digital via G.711) didn't support more than 300-3400 kHz anyway, so anything beyond 8 kHz sampling (corresponding to a Nyquist frequency of 4 kHz) is wasted on them.
Maybe you could go crazy with a custom modem that knows how to exploit the additional high-frequency components of G.722 while dealing with the lossy/psychoacoustic compression across all bands, but I doubt it would yield any improvement over G.711:
> It is compressed, yes, but at higher bitrates it is actually usable for modems/faxes
No, they're both exactly 64 kbps (after compression/"compression"), so you wouldn't be able to fit any more signal in it from an information theoretical point of view.
But only fax, and it's basically a software version of what I suggested above. It isn't actually a modem of any kind, it's basically the equivalent of sending a fax via sip messages. The closest we have is iaxmodem which does actually work for low baud faxes, but it's no DSP emulation for higher speeds, even if the line was good enough.
G.711 is what's used on the actual PSTN, so there's not even a hypothetical benefit from G.722 unless you're going direct over IP to another host supporting 722, and if you're doing that then you're probably better off with T.38 or just dropping the modem entirely for serial-over-IP.
One of the most egregious abusers of this recently got told off for it, I want to say it's IAB, but they're all as bad. Trust arc or whatever they're called deliberately made it as annoying and deceptive as possible. You can't blame the EU at all for a deliberate misinterpretation of the law.
It's a shame that their inability to muster up generals 2 was the nail in the coffin for the franchise, now they're just trying to squeeze a bit more cash out of it by re releasing stuff. The sooner they let it die the better.
Generals 2 had promise, with frostbite they could have even made it a hybrid game, micro manage units but eg commandos, tanks etc, if you've got a close fight then jump to first person etc. I would have loved that, c&c v battlefield. They'd probably break it though....
